Pete Svarrior and MCToon friendly chat

Quote from: wise on March 23, 2019, 05:33:04 AM

Why do you try to prove anything about me that I am not? Do you have a type of looser mind? You, and your alt Benjo have to give up to deal with me. Go find you and to your alt another business.

I am not trying to prove you are something you are not, wise. I know you are strong in your beliefs and convictions. I was just pointing out some bad logic.

Okay I get it wrong, sorry. My mistake. Actually, missunderstanding.

Again, that's not the Pete I know. If someone makes too many convincing arguments, they get canned, thus enhancing the echo chamber.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you came here from the other site where you got banned temporarily or permanently.

Quote from: Tom Foolery on March 21, 2019, 11:51:46 PM

Again, that's not the Pete I know. If someone makes too many convincing arguments, they get canned, thus enhancing the echo chamber.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you came here from the other site where you got banned temporarily or permanently.

All expenses paid 2 week vacation, to be specific.

Quote from: Jane on March 24, 2019, 04:17:25 PM

Quote from: Tom Foolery on March 21, 2019, 11:51:46 PM

Again, that's not the Pete I know. If someone makes too many convincing arguments, they get canned, thus enhancing the echo chamber.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you came here from the other site where you got banned temporarily or permanently.

All expenses paid 2 week vacation, to be specific.

Mm hmm. Why am I not surprised?

Quote from: Tom Foolery on March 24, 2019, 05:10:22 PM

Quote from: Jane on March 24, 2019, 04:17:25 PM

Quote from: Tom Foolery on March 21, 2019, 11:51:46 PM

Again, that's not the Pete I know. If someone makes too many convincing arguments, they get canned, thus enhancing the echo chamber.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you came here from the other site where you got banned temporarily or permanently.

All expenses paid 2 week vacation, to be specific.

Mm hmm. Why am I not surprised?

Beats me.
You'r welcome to go read my appeal in S&C there. Nobody ever showed me where I broke a single *written* rule. After like 250 posts with not a single warning I politely questioned the validity of the "Bishop experiment" and within 24 hours all my threads were moved to CN and I had two warnings -- all within 24 hours -- and nobody told me what rules I broke or when/where.
When pressed for a rule I broke, Pete just said "off topic posting." But  he refused to show me a single instance of where I'd posted off topic. I was trying hard to follow the rules.
He also bluffed, telling me that I was somebody's alt, and was putting on some act and so on. Later he admitted in AR that he had no evidence that I wasn't just genuinely the most obtuse person on our flat Earth.

But what makes me obtuse?
I guess that's what he calls it when I do the Cavendish experiment and get gravity like results. I point out terrible flaws in flat earth theory, like the sun, Australia, and Alaska. And I point out absurd claims in the wiki.

But look. Their rules clearly state that specific forums are debate clubs and as such we're supposed to use our debating skills to poke holes in theories even if we don't hold to the view for which we are arguing. So I really cannot see how me poking holes in flat earth theories could possibly be against the rules. And besides, it's so much fun.

As best as I can tell, flat earther's are generally very confident and as a result they invite anyone to poke holes in their theory since they believe it's bullet proof.

But when someone actually starts to poke too many holes, some flat earthers start to get rather worried and start trumping up charges 

I later found out that others had received very similar treatment - unsurprisingly when they challenged the Bishop Experiment as well.

Hopefully that will help you understand why I said that the Pete in this interview didn't sound like the Pete I know.

Beats me.
You'r welcome to go read my appeal in S&C there. Nobody ever showed me where I broke a single *written* rule. After like 250 posts with not a single warning I politely questioned the validity of the "Bishop experiment" and within 24 hours all my threads were moved to CN and I had two warnings -- all within 24 hours -- and nobody told me what rules I broke or when/where.
When pressed for a rule I broke, Pete just said "off topic posting." But  he refused to show me a single instance of where I'd posted off topic. I was trying hard to follow the rules.
He also bluffed, telling me that I was somebody's alt, and was putting on some act and so on. Later he admitted in AR that he had no evidence that I wasn't just genuinely the most obtuse person on our flat Earth.

But what makes me obtuse?
I guess that's what he calls it when I do the Cavendish experiment and get gravity like results. I point out terrible flaws in flat earth theory, like the sun, Australia, and Alaska. And I point out absurd claims in the wiki.

But look. Their rules clearly state that specific forums are debate clubs and as such we're supposed to use our debating skills to poke holes in theories even if we don't hold to the view for which we are arguing. So I really cannot see how me poking holes in flat earth theories could possibly be against the rules. And besides, it's so much fun.

As best as I can tell, flat earther's are generally very confident and as a result they invite anyone to poke holes in their theory since they believe it's bullet proof.

But when someone actually starts to poke too many holes, some flat earthers start to get rather worried and start trumping up charges 

I later found out that others had received very similar treatment - unsurprisingly when they challenged the Bishop Experiment as well.

Hopefully that will help you understand why I said that the Pete in this interview didn't sound like the Pete I know.

Oh, you're one if those users. Gotcha. When's your ban up so you can go back there?

Quote from: Tom Foolery on March 24, 2019, 10:10:26 PM

I do the Cavendish experiment and get gravity like results.

Oh, you're one if those users. Gotcha.

Yes, I'm one of those users who does real experiments, who follows the truth where ever it leads, and whatever it is. Bummer aint it?   

When's your ban up so you can go back there?

LOL 

Quote from: Jane on March 25, 2019, 03:23:10 AM

Quote from: Tom Foolery on March 24, 2019, 10:10:26 PM

I do the Cavendish experiment and get gravity like results.

Oh, you're one if those users. Gotcha.

Yes, I'm one of those users who does real experiments, who follows the truth where ever it leads, and whatever it is. Bummer aint it?   

Quote

When's your ban up so you can go back there?

LOL 

You realise you're talking to a REer right?
You're one of those users who's just generally arrogant, insists they knew better, will go on massive rants about what happened on another site, decides it's everyone else's fault, and is just generally obnoxious.

You realise you're talking to a REer right?
You're one of those users who's just generally arrogant, insists they knew better, will go on massive rants about what happened on another site, decides it's everyone else's fault, and is just generally obnoxious.

Not guilty, your honor! 
I replied in detail in AR (same subject line) since it's straying from topic here just a tad..

Quote from: Tom Foolery on March 25, 2019, 08:33:19 AM

LOL 

You realise you're talking to a REer right?

You're one of those users who's just generally arrogant, insists they knew better, and is just generally obnoxious.

Quote from: Jane on March 25, 2019, 09:31:21 AM

Quote from: Tom Foolery on March 25, 2019, 08:33:19 AM

LOL 

You realise you're talking to a REer right?

You're one of those users who's just generally arrogant, insists they knew better, and is just generally obnoxious.

Still sore?

Quote from: rabinoz on March 25, 2019, 02:07:45 PM

Quote from: Jane on March 25, 2019, 09:31:21 AM

Quote from: Tom Foolery on March 25, 2019, 08:33:19 AM

LOL 

You realise you're talking to a REer right?

You're one of those users who's just generally arrogant, insists they knew better, and is just generally obnoxious.

Still sore?

I’m sore you said “a re’er” instead of “an re’er”.

Quote from: Jane on March 25, 2019, 02:09:22 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on March 25, 2019, 02:07:45 PM

Quote from: Jane on March 25, 2019, 09:31:21 AM

Quote from: Tom Foolery on March 25, 2019, 08:33:19 AM

LOL 

You realise you're talking to a REer right?

You're one of those users who's just generally arrogant, insists they knew better, and is just generally obnoxious.

Still sore?

I’m sore you said “a fe’er” instead of “an fe’er”.

WE MUST SOLVE THIS WITH A POLL

Quote from: rabinoz on March 25, 2019, 02:07:45 PM

You're one of those users who's just generally arrogant, insists they knew better, and is just generally obnoxious.

Still sore?

Why would I be sore?

Just sick to death of your continued pretence that you know anything about physics, astronomy or cosmology!

Quote from: Jane on March 25, 2019, 02:09:22 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on March 25, 2019, 02:07:45 PM

You're one of those users who's just generally arrogant, insists they knew better, and is just generally obnoxious.

Still sore?

Why would I be sore?

Just sick to death of your continued pretence that you know anything about physics, astronomy or cosmology!

I think you need a nap.

Even a thread about pizzaplanet turns into an argument.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 25, 2019, 02:50:37 PM

Just sick to death of your continued pretence that you know anything about physics, astronomy or cosmology!

I think you need a nap.

Even a thread about pizzaplanet turns into an argument.

Maybe you should first check who turned a thread about pizzaplanet turns into an argument.

Quote from: Tom Foolery on March 21, 2019, 11:51:46 PM

Again, that's not the Pete I know. If someone makes too many convincing arguments, they get canned, thus enhancing the echo chamber.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you came here from the other site where you got banned temporarily or permanently.

Etc, etc!

Well, she wasn't wrong.

Quote from: sokarul on March 25, 2019, 02:36:16 PM

Quote from: Jane on March 25, 2019, 02:09:22 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on March 25, 2019, 02:07:45 PM

Quote from: Jane on March 25, 2019, 09:31:21 AM

Quote from: Tom Foolery on March 25, 2019, 08:33:19 AM

LOL 

You realise you're talking to a REer right?

You're one of those users who's just generally arrogant, insists they knew better, and is just generally obnoxious.

Still sore?

I’m sore you said “a fe’er” instead of “an fe’er”.

WE MUST SOLVE THIS WITH A POLL

I posted this in the AR thread but since it's an issue that has been bugging me for a long time way more than this earth shape business I feel this needs to reach a wider audience:

I've always written "an REer". Or "an FEer". Because I was taught the rule is the sound of the first letter of the acronym is what matters.

The R is an 'ah' sound, F is an 'eh' sound, so vowel sounds, so preceded by 'an'.

As for globe earther, GE'r, you get the 'gah' sound, consonant, so preceded by an 'a'.

Also, I think it just sounds better than "ah eff-eee-er".

For the love of god can we all agree on "an FEer" and "an REer" and be done with this madness?

The R is an 'ah' sound, F is an 'eh' sound, so vowel sounds, so preceded by 'an'.

As for globe earther, GE'r, you get the 'gah' sound, consonant, so preceded by an 'a'.

Also, I think it just sounds better than "ah eff-eee-er".

For the love of god can we all agree on "an FEer" and "an REer" and be done with this madness?

Only if you read them like that. Like, you say 'a radar system,' not 'an radar system' despite the fact radar's an acronym. How you pronounce it matters, if you read it 'Eff-ee-er' it's 'an,' I just read it as 'flat earther' directly so 'an' doesn't work.

Quote from: Stash on March 25, 2019, 06:00:51 PM

The R is an 'ah' sound, F is an 'eh' sound, so vowel sounds, so preceded by 'an'.

As for globe earther, GE'r, you get the 'gah' sound, consonant, so preceded by an 'a'.

Also, I think it just sounds better than "ah eff-eee-er".

For the love of god can we all agree on "an FEer" and "an REer" and be done with this madness?

Only if you read them like that. Like, you say 'a radar system,' not 'an radar system' despite the fact radar's an acronym. How you pronounce it matters, if you read it 'Eff-ee-er' it's 'an,' I just read it as 'flat earther' directly so 'an' doesn't work.

Yes and no and maybe. Yes when an acronym is more commonly pronounced as a word unto itself, like 'radar', an acronym for Radio Detection and Ranging, then it is treated just like a word, in this case, consonant 'R' begets an 'a'. The no is when it is more commonly pronounced as the letters of the actual acronym. The maybe is your "I just read it as 'flat earther' directly so 'an' doesn't work." That's the tough call.

Then we get to something like 'FET':

1) An FET hypothesis is...(pronounced in head eff-eee-tee)
2) A FET hypothesis is...(pronounced in head Flat Earth Theory)

I argue for #1 b/c the sentence reads as F-E-T (eff-eee-tee) not as fet, a word, though it is understood to mean Flat Earth Theory it is not pronounced that way in my head. The sentence is read: An  eff-eee-tee hypothesis is...

What say you? As this could be the most enlightening debate we have ever had.

Didn't know where to put this. Seems like a chat between MCToon and Pete is happening today if anyone is interested.

Quote from: MCToon on March 20, 2019, 04:08:31 PM

Pete and I had a nice chat for my Coffee with a Flat Earther series on YouTube.  The video is premiering Thursday, March 21 8:00pm GMT or 3:00pm CST.

You can watch live and participate in the live chat or watch any time later.


Thanks for the cordial chat, Pete.

Thank you, Stash, for posting this here.  Yes, it was a nice conversation.  I find that people often are a bit more cordial in person than behind a keyboard, myself included.  Something for me to work on.

I also wondered about his accent.  When I asked a clarifying question, he deferred.  Fair enough, people have different reasons for protecting their identity, I see no reason this has any bearing.

I don't question his stance on FE.  However, Tom Bishop, I suspect is just enjoying a debate club.  Tom, want to join me in a video?  Maybe a bit more of a challenge response format than just a chat?  Let me know.

John Davis, how about you?

I'm (almost) always happy to have a chat with folks. The exception has been a few morning radio shows that were clearly out to take the piss out of us. You can contact me at [email protected] and we can sort the details.

I did get a chance to listen through; good job Pete.

 

The exception has been a few morning radio shows that were clearly out to take the piss out of us.

Ugh, I fell for one of those once, on talkradio. A shame, since I also had an evening show with them which had a really positive atmosphere, and which I thought went really well. I'm trying to be more careful now.

I did get a chance to listen through; good job Pete.

Thank you!